A student uses ChatGPT to understand a concept. The internet calls them “lazy.”

I get it. I understand the fear. AI is sludge. AI is theft. AI is for people who don’t respect the craft.

But here’s the thing: years ago, I had the same hunger to learn. I wanted to make games, build worlds, write lore. But I had no structure. No mentor. No feedback. I didn’t even know where to start. The classes I needed were gatekept by cost. So I took the safe route. The route everyone in my town took.

We shame people for using AI. We gatekeep knowledge from those who can’t afford mentors. Both are wrong.

The real question is: Are you learning, or are you outsourcing thinking?

The Feedback Gap

Potential is fragile. It needs two things:

  1. Friction (Practice)
  2. Feedback (Correction)

If you have money, you hire a tutor. You go to art school. You join critique groups. You pay $15,000 for guidance, not information. The information is free on YouTube.

If you don’t have money, you practice in a vacuum. You make mistakes, but nobody tells you why it’s wrong. You plateau. You quit.

AI is the first tool that simulates that $15,000 feedback loop at scale. It doesn’t get tired. It doesn’t judge your background. It costs $20 a month (or free).

That’s not “cheating.” That’s democratization.

The Sparring Partner

Years ago, I wanted to build games. I had ideas, scenarios, passion. But I didn’t know structure. No coding classes. No writing mentors. Just “School of Wattpad” and self-doubt.

I didn’t lack talent. I lacked a feedback loop. So I plateaued. I moved on to “practical” things.

Now, I’m in a team and finally building it. Not because AI “did it for me,” but because it acts as checks and balances:

  • It finds holes in my logic.
  • It provides second opinions.
  • It validates ideas while presenting counter-arguments.
  • It gives me sources to verify.

I can’t pinpoint one specific lesson AI taught me. It’s the continuous sparring that inspires me. The feeling of not working in a vacuum anymore.

So, I really don’t think I’m “cheating.” I’m catching up to the person I could have been if I’d had this feedback loop years ago.

Good Use vs. Bad Use

We shame people for using AI in education. But what we should shame is using this great tool wrongly.

Here’s the nuance: studies suggest overreliance on AI can reduce critical thinking. The “smooth brain” effect is real.

So let’s be honest about the distinction:

Bad Use (Outsourcing Thinking):
“Write this essay for me.”
→ Result: Atrophy.

Good Use (Outsourcing Friction):
“Find the holes in this argument. What am I missing?”
→ Result: Acceleration.

A good mentor doesn’t do the work. They challenge your assumptions and point at blind spots. That’s how you must use AI.

And here’s the other honest thing: AI isn’t perfect. It has biases. It was trained by imperfect humans. But so do human mentors. The skill is learning to verify. Cross-check sources. Run the code. Test the logic. Treat AI like a junior colleague, not a guru.

People who outsource thinking aren’t just hurting themselves. They’re creating a generation that can’t verify, can’t critique, can’t build. That’s not a moral failure. It’s a structural risk.

The Explosion of Competence

Coding bootcamps charge $15,000. Not for information (that’s free on YouTube). For feedback loops.

You might argue: “Bootcamps aren’t just feedback. They’re structure, deadlines, peers, and networks.” True. AI can’t introduce you to a hiring manager. But here’s the thing: the $15,000 isn’t primarily for the network. It’s for the feedback that makes you worthy of the network. AI democratizes the first part. The second part? That’s on you to build.

We are about to see an explosion of competence from people who were previously invisible—those who had potential and the hunger, but no access.

We should celebrate this, not shame it.

The Question That Matters

If you’re using AI to skip the work, you’re doomed.

If you’re using it to deepen the work, you’re dangerous.

I don’t want to be admired for suffering in isolation. I want to be judged by what I built.

Years ago, I couldn’t afford the mentor. Today, I have one. And I’m finally building the thing I thought I’d abandoned.

But this isn’t just my story. There are millions of people like me—people with potential but no access. AI is the first tool that levels that playing field.

So the question isn’t whether AI is “cheating.” The question is: Are we going to shame the first generation that finally has a chance to catch up?